Mark Hillyard #fundie

Mark Hillyard #fundie wnd.com

Why these people think along the lines of Karl Marx is a mystery to me. Then the mix in some junk from the Green Movement, some Fascism and then turn it on us in order to do what. Where's the Historical Good coming from all this garbage. Charles A. Jennings posted this definition of Marxism:

2. The Marxist View This philosophical scheme of history views all mankind as being involved in a "class struggle" between the bourgeoisie (capitalists, middle-class) and the proletariat (industrial working class) which will eventually result in a "utopia" or the "perfect socialist state." When formulating this philosophy, Karl Marx put all men into one of two categories: the "liberating class" as "saviors" or into the "oppressing class" as the adversaries of the perfect social order. This atheistic view of human history while polarizing a society has resulted in utter social chaos and revolution. Marx viewed man as nothing more than an economic materialistic animal whose sole purpose was to serve the all-powerful state through human labor. This view also results in utter hopelessness for man both now and in the hereafter.

What the Democrats are doing reminds me more and more of the Beast of Revelation which is doomed for destruction because it enslaves people rather than set them free. The Beast is a system and it infects the entire left wing of humanity. Jesus said that he would separate the "goats on my left and my sheep on my right hand." This is very clear to me as I watch from my computer screen all those "ism's" attacking everything that is good and stands for Freedom. God is going to give us "The Perfect Law of Liberty" which to the left appears evil and is visible in their approach at enslaving all of us.

33 comments

old comment by UHM

"involved in a "class struggle" between the bourgeoisie (capitalists, middle-class) and the proletariat (industrial working class)"
No, not entirely. He actually saw several classes inbetween but said they were shrinking through the power of industrialized capitalism. Also whether your were a capitalist or a socialist doesn't have anything to do with your class. And he should know, his best buddy and comrade was Friedrich Engels, who owned several factories and was a fellow member of the Communist Party. It should be pointed out that different from the Bolsheviks and later communists, Marx did not argue that class was inherent.

<which will eventually result in a "utopia" or the "perfect socialist state.">
No. Marx argued that the history of humanity can be categorized into eras. He called the current state capitalism (from "capital" as in "money"), the revolutionary stage in which the proletariat took over and the bourgeosie would be usurped into the proletariat socialism (as in social, societal) and the final stage in which classes and the state seizes to exist communism (from commune, as in community). So you can see, Marxism isn't hard-on for anything concerning the state.

old comment by UHM

"This atheistic view of human history while polarizing a society has resulted in utter social chaos and revolution."
It's revolutionary theory - that's kinda the point of the whole thing.

"Marx viewed man as nothing more than an economic materialistic animal whose sole purpose was to serve the all-powerful state through human labor."
See my second pragraph. Marx saw the state as a tool of the collective ruling class to push their will on those who belonged to a different class. Concerning atheistic, Marx was never all that outspoken about religion, though he was an atheist, he saw religion much in the same way as the state - a tool of suppression and oppression, an opium for the pain of economic hopelessness and poverty. He probably thought that in the final stage of communism, religion, much like the state, would just dissappear.

Please fundies, read the Communist Manifest, it's like 40 pages or something and there are a lot of holes you can poke in it without pulling shit out of your ass.

old comment by Mad_Jester

Oh, quit your whining, you puling little maggot. The only 'freedom' being attacked here is your perceived freedom to be intellectually-lazy and exclusionary. Expecting you to not be a complete shithead is not slavery, which anyone with anything resembling a healthy sense of perspective can see.

Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it's a fascist totalitarian plot to take away your precious freedoms. If you wish an illustration of the difference, by all means go to China and practice the kind of governmental criticism that you're allowed to do here with impunity.

(And traditionally speaking, when your god comes with new laws, it's usually the exact opposite of liberty.)

old comment by Xotan

"The Perfect Law of Liberty"

You mean the liberty to die when, because of illness your health insurance calls a limit on what they will pay out, so that you have to fall back on your essential resourses, like selling your house to continue life-saving treatment, leading to the ultimate liberty of dying when your capital is all used up. I should also have mentioned the mind-crushing anxiety that has to be lived through during all of this. I'm sure your Jesus would approve of this. But the he is a selfish bastard who cast off the sick and unclean, and threw stones at the prostitute...no? Or do I smell hypocrisy very strongly in America? I only hope that neither Hillyard or any of his family ever find themselves in such a situation. OTOH, should that ever happen, it will be condign, and it will be hard to avoid letting him/her know that it is no more than they dished out to others by their uncaring selfishness.

old comment by dionysus

This philosophical scheme of history views all mankind as being involved in a "class struggle" between the bourgeoisie (capitalists, middle-class) and the proletariat (industrial working class) which will eventually result in a "utopia" or the "perfect socialist state."

Aside from the utopia and perfect state bits, how is this wrong? People and groups are ALWAYS trying to put themselves into a position of superiority over other groups. And there is always an oppressive class. It's not always based on money (it can be piousness, being born into the right family, being "selected by God", etc.) but there's always some way people find to be superior and oppress others. Why? Because our species is just fucked up like that and the Constitution was an effort to fix that bug in the system. Communism was an attempt at fixing it too, but it grossly misunderstood human nature and ended up simply handing the keys over to a new group of oppressors.

God is going to give us "The Perfect Law of Liberty"

You mean where you either obey him or you get sent to hell? Where you can get punished for THINKING the wrong thing? Where you worship him for eternity even if you DO go to heaven? That's some freedom. The aforementioned communist regimes have more freedom than that.

old comment by Alencon

Marx was simply documenting his observations which, at the time he wrote, were quite valid. By the way, the middle class was NOT a part of the bourgeoisie and was severely underestimated by Marx.

Marx believed Capitalism was inherently unstable because of the ongoing concentration of wealth into a smaller and smaller percentage of the population. When things got bad enough the have-nots, which would be the overwhelming majority of the population, would simply rise up and murder the haves.

What Marx overlooked was the rise of a large middle class which was too comfortable to rebel against the bourgeoisie and too comfortable to allow a rebellion.

For over a hundred years the middle class, combined with a number of socialist reforms (labor laws, social security, unemployment etc.), have stabilized the situation.

BUT, and this is a big but, with the middle class under assault from economic downturns and the rising government debt jeopardizing the extent of socialist reforms, Marx may well have the last laugh yet.

old comment by Often Partisan

"Marx viewed man as nothing more than an economic materialistic animal whose sole purpose was to serve the all-powerful state through human labor."

Um, no. Marx criticised capitalism for turning the individual worker under the capitalist mode of production into a mere "hand", an "appendage of the machine" with his/her only function to be to produce as much surplus-value as possible for the capitalist class. Marx also saw the potential of technology to be able to free mankind from its history of stultifying, repetitive and unfulfilling labour. Marx was actually pretty much criticising the view you attribute to him. See Das Kapital Vol I, Chapter 15.

(Of course there are a lot of debates one could get into over the Marxist view of labour and what constitutes Communist liberation as regards labour and technology in Marx but I will leave it)

If you are going to criticise Marx could you read him first? I don't care if people disagree with Marx, but don't distort his views.

@ Alencon
"Marx believed Capitalism was inherently unstable because of the ongoing concentration of wealth into a smaller and smaller percentage of the population."

This is true, but we have to be careful on how we define 'wealth'. Marx believed in the centralisation and concentration ~of capital~. The large companies and large banks generally become larger and swallow up the smaller companies. (Bear in mind there are also reverse tendencies too, though these are outweighed by centralising tendencies). This is to make the point that a bit higher wages for workers does not refute Marx's thesis on this point, which is ambiguous if we merely say 'wealth' rather than 'capital'.

I am slightly obsessed with Marx so I will shut up now ;)